1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, on December 10, 207, transferred the ownership transfer registration made on December 7, 2007, to a third party on July 7, 2009, after completing the ownership transfer registration made on December 7, 2007, with respect to the share of 18.14/950 square meters in Nam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 184 square meters, D road 950 square meters, and 18.92/812 square meters in E road (hereinafter “instant land”), among the share of 812 square meters in E road. However, the Plaintiff did not report and pay the transfer income tax.

B. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 19,872,00 on the real estate registry and transferred KRW 61,00,000 on the successful bid price, and determined and notified the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax of KRW 25,081,740 (including additional tax) for the year 2009.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a request for review on September 1, 2014, but was dismissed on March 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 8 through 12, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff obtained title trust with respect to the instant land from B, and thus, the instant transfer income tax under the substance over form principle should be imposed on B, the actual owner.

B. Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "if the ownership of income, profit, property, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income actually belongs shall be liable to pay taxes." Thus, there is a burden of proving that the ownership of income is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income actually accrues.

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Nu505 delivered on December 11, 1984). Each of the statements in the Doctrine and Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 15 (including the serial number) is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was entrusted with the title of the land in this case from Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.